In the first case, the FAA alleges Southwest failed to properly inspect an aircraft that experienced a cabin depressurization. On May 13, 2013, a Southwest Boeing 737 lost cabin pressure during a flight from Boston Logan International Airport to Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. The cabins oxygen masks deployed and the aircraft made an emergency landing in Baltimore.

The FAA alleges that after the event, Southwest mechanics failed to complete a mandatory inspection to check whether the change in cabin pressure damaged the aircraft and to ensure used oxygen bottles were replaced. The airline allegedly operated the plane on 123 flights before completing the inspection on June 3.

Additionally, the airline allegedly operated the aircraft on May 14 and 15 flights with two of the four portable oxygen units unserviceable. A minimum of three were required under the conditions of Southwests Minimum Equipment List (MEL). The MEL specifies what equipment may be inoperable during a flight, and a carrier cannot fly an aircraft with inoperable equipment unless it complies with the MEL.

Further, the agency alleges the airline operated the aircraft on approximately 120 additional flights with a portable oxygen unit that did not comply with the conditions of the MEL. The FAA proposes a $265,800 civil penalty in this case.

In the second case, the FAA alleges Southwest failed to comply with Federal Aviation Regulations for accurately recording repairs in an aircrafts logbook. On March 18, 2013, the pilot of a Boeing 717 operated by Southwest Airlines under the Air Tran Airways livery reported seeing ice and water coming from the jetliners galley vent. Over the next few weeks, maintenance technicians replaced several components in an attempt to correct the problem, which was traced to a faulty component in one of the aircrafts air-conditioning systems.

The FAA alleges that the airline failed to fully comply with its FAA-approved maintenance procedures, which describe in detail how to make repairs and then accurately account for them in the aircrafts logbooks. The FAA further alleges that during the troubleshooting process, mechanics deferred making the repairs by improperly applying an MEL exemption to this particular situation. The aircraft was flown on several passenger-carrying flights before the issue was resolved. The FAA proposes a $62,750 civil penalty in this case.

Southwest Airlines has requested to meet with the FAA to discuss each case.

The FAA alleges that on July 11, 2014, Neovia offered a package of six one-gallon containers of corrosive liquid to UPS for shipment by air. A UPS employee discovered the hazardous material after the shipment began leaking.

The FAA alleges the package was not declared to contain hazardous materials and the materials offered were not properly classed, described, packaged, marked, labeled and in proper condition for shipment under the Hazardous Materials Regulations. Further, the FAA alleges Neovia provided no emergency response information with the package.

Neovia has 30 days after receipt of the FAAs enforcement letter to respond to the Agency.

]]>Press Release - FAA Forecast Sees Continued, Steady Growth in Air Travelhttp://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18434&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18434&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_RPress ReleaseMon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 ESTWASHINGTON The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today released an annual aviation forecast that shows the nations aviation system will continue to grow over the next two decades with greater numbers of people expected to fly more miles each year.

The improving economy continues to bode well for the health of the U.S air transportation system, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. The FAA and industry are continuing to deploy NextGen technologies and procedures to ensure that the nations aviation system can safely and efficiently meet our growing airspace demands.

Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs) are the aviation standard for measuring air travel volume. An RPM represents one paying passenger traveling one mile.The FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2015 to 2035 projects RPM growth for U.S. air carriers to average 2.5 percent per year over the 20-year forecast.

Load Factor is a term that represents the average percentage of seats filled in commercial passenger aircraft. The report concluded that U.S. air carrier Load Factors were an estimated 83.4 percent in 2014. Load Factors are projected to grow to 84.2 percent by 2035.

U.S. airlines served an estimated 756.3 million passengers in 2014, up by 2.3 percent from the 2013 level. The FAA forecast projects passenger growth to average 2.0 percent per year, reaching one billion passengers in 2029, and 1.14 billion by 2035.

To help the FAA and the aerospace system better prepare for the forecasted growth and future changes, the FAA and industry are working together to implement the NextGen air traffic modernization plan. To further expedite this effort, late last year the FAA and industry unveiled the NextGen Priorities Joint Implementation Plan. Under the plan, the agency and industry share responsibility to meet specific milestones, locations, timelines and metrics for high priority, high readiness NextGen initiatives. These initiatives include Multiple Runway Operations; Performance Based Navigation using satellites to move aircraft more quickly from point A to point B; and improved Surface and Data Communications.

Other important data that illustrates the growing demands on our nations airspace system is air cargo traffic. As measured by Revenue Ton Miles (RTMs) one ton of cargo flown one mile is expected grow to 72.6 billion by 2035 at an average annual growth rate of 3.6 percent during the forecast period. In addition, landings and take-offs at FAA-operated towered airports and FAA-contracted towered airports are expected to increase from an estimated 49.6 million operations in 2014 to 59.9 million operations in 2035, an average rate of 0.9 percent per year.

See additional details and a fact sheet on the forecast, including a detailed breakdown of general or private aviation, aircraft fleet sizes, and other FAA workload measures. I

The FAA alleges GlobalJet operated a Cessna 550 jet on at least 47 flights for compensation or hire when it was not authorized to use the aircraft for these operations. When the FAA requested GlobalJet records for the flights, the company allegedly provided falsified logs showing the flights were not for compensation, and withheld invoices showing it had in fact been paid for them.

Additionally, the FAA alleges GlobalJet conducted flights for compensation or hire during a 12-month period when it did not have a qualified chief pilot. GlobalJet also allegedly used crew members unqualified for for-compensation or for-hire operations on over 140 revenue flights during the same 12-month period. The agency alleges that GlobalJet knew it did not have a qualified chief pilot and was using unqualified crew members.

The FAAs revocation order alleges that GlobalJet knowingly violated Federal Aviation Regulations, demonstrated a complete disregard for public safety and poses an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

The company has surrendered its certificate in response to the FAAs order. It has appealed the order to the NTSB.

The Agency alleges that Gardner, which is a FAA-certificated aircraft repair station, failed to conduct pre-employment drug tests and received verified negative results before hiring six people to perform safety-sensitive functions. One of the employees subsequently tested positive for amphetamines during a pre-employment drug test that the company administered after he was hired. The FAA alleges Gardner allowed him to work on two aircrafts in the following months without being evaluated by a substance abuse professional and without completing the required return-to-work process following a positive drug test.

Gardner also did not request information from twelve employees regarding previous positive drug or alcohol tests or refusals to be tested, the FAA alleges.

Additionally, the FAA alleges Gardner did not provide written drug and alcohol educational materials to all of its employees who were required to receive them, and did not train the person who was required to make determinations about reasonable suspicion drug testing.

Gardner has requested additional information about the casefrom the FAA.

In each case, the FAA alleges the shipments were not accompanied by shipping papers to indicate the hazardous nature of their contents and were not marked or labeled in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations. The FAA also alleges the companies failed to ensure their employees received required hazardous materials training and did not provide emergency response information with the packages. Additionally, the FAA alleges Bridgewater International and Crow Works did not properly package the shipments.

The cases are as follows:

$82,500 against China Express International Express Changzhou Branch of Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China. The FAA alleges that on June 12, 2014, China Express offered a shipment containing one Lithium-ion battery pack to United Airlines for air transportation. U.S. Customs & Border Protection discovered the shipment at Chicago OHare International Airport and alerted the FAA.

China Express has 30 days from receipt of the FAAs enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

$67,070 against Bridgewater International, Inc., of Woods Cross, Utah. The FAA alleges that on September 19, 2014, Bridgewater offered a shipment containing polyester resin, acetone, organic peroxide and construction adhesives to FedEx for shipment by air. Workers at a FedEx sort facility discovered the shipment when some of the contents leaked, including the polyester resin.

Bridgewater has asked to meet with the FAA to discuss the case.

$66,000 against Crow Works, LLC, Killbuck, Ohio. The FAA alleges that on September 8, 2014, Crow Works offered a shipment containing petroleum mineral spirits, rubbing alcohol, flammable aerosols and paint to FedEx for shipment by air. FedEx workers discovered the shipment and alerted the FAA.

The FAA alleges the aircraft ground handling company failed to administer drug and alcohol tests to the minimum required percentage of employees in 2013. The FAA further alleges the company failed to add five employees to its random testing pool for weeks or months after they completed their ground coordinator training.

Additionally, the FAA alleges that Servisair failed to distribute its drug-use policy, and failed to display and distribute educational material and an employee assistance hotline number following a move to a new terminal.

Servisair has 30 days from the receipt of the FAAs civil penalty letter to respond to the agency.

In both cases, the FAA alleges the shipments were not accompanied by shipping papers to indicate the hazardous nature of their contents and were not marked, labeled or packaged in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Regulations. The FAA also alleges the companies failed to provide emergency response information and that Chemique, Inc., failed to ensure its employees had received required hazardous materials training.

The cases are as follows:

$96,000 against The Home Depot, Inc., of Atlanta, Ga. The FAA alleges that on Feb. 15, 2013, The Home Depot offered a shipment containing 58 two-quart containers of flammable charcoal lighter fluid and four lighter packs, each containing three flammable lighters, to UPS for air transport to Bloomington, Minn. UPS employees at the companys sort facility in Louisville, Ky., discovered the shipment leaking. One of the lighter fluid containers had leaked its entire contents.

$63,000 against Chemique, Inc., of Moorestown, N.J. The FAA alleges that on September 30, 2013, Chemique offered a shipment of six, 8-ounce containers of liquid rust remover and restoration cleaner for transport by air to Milton, Fla. Both substances are corrosive poisons. FedEx employees discovered the shipment at the companys sort facility in Tampa, Fla.

Both companies have asked to meet with the FAA to discuss the respective cases.

]]>Press Release - Federal Aviation Administration Dedicates New Airport Traffic Control Tower at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airporthttp://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18354&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18354&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_RPress ReleaseWed, 25 Feb 2015 00:00:00 ESTThe U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) dedicated a new $16.4 million, state-of-the-art airport traffic control tower at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport today. The new tower is equipped with the latest radar, communications, and weather technology. It will enable air traffic controllers to continue to provide the safest, most efficient service to flights at the busy South Florida airport.

This new tower demonstrates the FAAs commitment to aviation safety and to modernizing the air traffic control system in South Florida, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. Investing in our transportation infrastructure also ensures we stay competitive in todays global economy.

The new facility includes a 117-foot-tall airport traffic control tower topped by a 525-square-foot tower cab. A 7,200-square-foot single-story base building houses training rooms, administrative offices, and equipment rooms.

Investing in our nations aviation infrastructure is key to improving the way travelers fly by making our National Airspace System safer and more efficient, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. Building new air traffic control facilities is a key component of the FAAs Next Generation Air Traffic Control system.

NextGen is the transformation of the National Airspace System to make air travel more convenient and dependable, and ensure flights are as safe, secure, and seamless as possible.

The FAA began working from the new tower on November 4, 2014. A total of 22 air traffic controllers, two front line managers and the air traffic manager staff the tower. They handled 182,237 operations in 2014. The towers support staff includes 19 Technical Operations technicians, staff, and managers who are based at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.

The proposed rule also includes extensive discussion of the possibility of an additional, more flexible framework for micro UAS under 4.4 pounds. The FAA is asking the public to comment on this possible classification to determine whether it should include this option as part of a final rule. The FAA is also asking for comment about how the agency can further leverage the UAS test site program and an upcoming UAS Center of Excellence to further spur innovation at innovation zones.

The public will be able to comment on the proposed regulation for 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, which can be found at www.regulations.gov. Separate from this proposal, the FAA intends to hold public meetings to discuss innovation and opportunities at the test sites and Center of Excellence. These meetings will be announced in a future Federal Register notice.

Technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace and this milestone allows federal regulations and the use of our national airspace to evolve to safely accommodate innovation, said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

The proposed rule would require an operator to maintain visual line of sight of a small UAS. The rule would allow, but not require, an operator to work with a visual observer who would maintain constant visual contact with the aircraft. The operator would still need to be able to see the UAS with unaided vision (except for glasses). The FAA is asking for comments on whether the rules should permit operations beyond line of sight, and if so, what the appropriate limits should be.

We have tried to be flexible in writing these rules, said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. We want to maintain todays outstanding level of aviation safety without placing an undue regulatory burden on an emerging industry.

Under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an operator. An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. A small UAS operator would not need any further private pilot certifications (i.e., a private pilot license or medical rating).

The new rule also proposes operating limitations designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground:

A small UAS operator must always see and avoid manned aircraft. If there is a risk of collision, the UAS operator must be the first to maneuver away.

The operator must discontinue the flight when continuing would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people or property.

A small UAS operator must assess weather conditions, airspace restrictions and the location of people to lessen risks if he or she loses control of the UAS.

A small UAS may not fly over people, except those directly involved with the flight.

Flights should be limited to 500 feet altitude and no faster than 100 mph.

Operators must stay out of airport flight paths and restricted airspace areas, and obey any FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs).

The proposed rule maintains the existing prohibition against operating in a careless or reckless manner. It also would bar an operator from allowing any object to be dropped from the UAS.

Operators would be responsible for ensuring an aircraft is safe before flying, but the FAA is not proposing that small UAS comply with current agency airworthiness standards or aircraft certification. For example, an operator would have to perform a preflight inspection that includes checking the communications link between the control station and the UAS. Small UAS with FAA-certificated components also could be subject to agency airworthiness directives.

The new rules would not apply to model aircraft. However, model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes. Generally speaking, the new rules would not apply to government aircraft operations, because we expect that these government operations will typically continue to actively operate under the Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process unless the operator opts to comply with and fly under the new small UAS regulations.

In addition to this proposal, earlier today, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum concerning transparency, accountability, and privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties protections for the Federal Governments use of UAS in the national airspace system which directs the initiation of a multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop a framework for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues concerning commercial and private UAS use.

The current unmanned aircraft rules remain in place until the FAA implements a final new rule. The FAA encourages new operators to visit:http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org